This is probably not an acceptable answer to the OP, but something to consider just the same.

Move to RB sooner. Get the style/chords down and then move to RB for generating.

Here's what you gain:
Reliable reproduction of tracks (less lost work)
Ability to generate sections of individual or multiple tracks
Ability to try different style parts with the song (again partial or whole tracks)
Multiriff options = ability to try multiple generations at once and cut/paste sections or do Multiriff again .. same or different style

What you lose:
As far as Part Markers, RB supports A/B .. BiaB has C and D; this can issues with import/open routines
Ability to keep 'exact' track data (it is re-interpreted when regenerated but usually pretty consistent) .. YMMV
'Convenience' of having everything regenerating quickly (often times not desired here; I had stuff I liked!)
Preservation of C/D parts.

.. they are different programs and behave differently and I like that!
knowing what each does best helps decide when to make the transition.

One thing that may be causing significant difference in RB compared to BiaB is if you had C/D part markers, as mentioned above. I could see this causing significant changes when opening a BiaB file in RB.

The tradeoff/benefit in RB is the ability to drill down into styles to regenerate the desired sections using substyles. RB calls them variations .. (see image below)
This can be a challenge sometimes, which is another reason I move to RB sooner than later. I experiment there instead once I reach a certain point, mainly because I can and I know the SEQ file will be exact when I open it.
Again YMMV, just works better for me.


Attached Files (Click to download or enlarge) (Only available when you are logged in)
SubStyles.jpg (106.89 KB, 34 downloads)
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!